Phase Ib study of anetumab ravtansive in combination with immunotherapy or immunotherapy plus chemotherapy in mesothelin-enriched advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: NCI10208.
Authors: Pavlina Spiliopoulou, Anup Kasi, Laith I. Abushahin, Dana Backlund Cardin, Heinz-Josef Lenz, Farshid Dayyani, Wells A. Messersmith, Nkiruka Ezenwajiaku, Paul Eliezer Oberstein, Ravi Kumar Paluri, Reema Anil Patel, Edward Kim, Aparna Kalyan, Brandon George Smaglo, Manik A. Amin, Mohammed Najeeb Al Hallak, Olumide B. Gbolahan, Lillian L. Siu, Jeffrey Moscow, Anna Spreafico
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

4136 Background: Mesothelin (MSLN) is overexpressed in 80-85% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDAC). Anetumab ravtansine (AR) is a fully human anti-MSLN immunoglobulin G1 antibody conjugated to the anti-tubulin maytansinoid DM4. Through NCI-ETCTN, the North American Star Consortium conducted a phase I study to evaluate the safety/tolerability of AR in various combinations in patients (pts) with PDAC. Here, we report preliminary results of the escalation part. Methods: Pts with advanced PDAC after at least one line of treatment were included. AR was combined with nivolumab (ARM1), nivolumab/ipilimumab (ARM 2), or nivolumab plus gemcitabine (Gem) (ARM3), using an integrated biomarker analysis. Two dose levels (DL) of AR were evaluated, DL1=5.5mg/kg and DL2=6.5mg/kg (established RP2D). Key eligibility criterion was MSLN expression in &gt;5% of tumor cells by immunohistochemistry. Pts with prior anti-PD1/anti-CTLA4 treatment were excluded but treatment with prior Gem was allowed. Mandatory blood and paired tumor samples were collected for investigation of the immune microenvironment, genomic/transcriptomic changes and for an in-depth description of AR pharmacokinetics. Results: Data cut-off date was 22/01/2022. A total of n=33 pts were enrolled, n=11 (ARM 1), n=13 (ARM 2) and n=9 (ARM3). Median age of pts was 66 (40-83), 33% of PS=0 and 66% of PS=1. Twenty-six pts (79%) had previously been exposed to Gem. Median number of prior lines of treatment was 3 (1-7). Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for DLT. Grade (G)3/4 TRAEs: 0% in ARM1DL1, 5.3% in ARM1DL2, 0% in ARM2DL1, 16.9% in ARM2DL2, 8.6% in ARM3DL1 and 19.5% in ARM3DL2. There were 2 dose-limiting toxicities in ARM2DL2, one G3 upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, possibly related to AR, and one G3 thrombocytopenia and G3 anaemia, definitely related to AR. Ocular toxicity events were G1/2 blurred vision in 5/33 (15%) and G1 xerophthalmia in 1/33 (3%), related to both AR and anti-PD1; G2 keratitis in 1/33 (3%), related to AR only. Only G1 peripheral neuropathy was observed in 4/33 (12%) pts. Efficacy data is presented in the table. In ARM3, the range of tumor measurement (ΤΜ) change was Δ TM =–16.8% to +16.2% and 3/8 (36%) pts with SD had previously been exposed to Gem. Conclusions: Based on the observed disease control rate and acceptable toleratbility, ARM3 (both DL1 and DL2) will be tested in the expansion part. A further 20 patients will be recruited for dose confirmation and comprehensive biomarker evaluation. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis is under way. Clinical trial information: NCT03816358. [Table: see text]